Zeitgeist - fantastic documentary

[Truth-Bringer]

Ah ok then I will pay close attention when you guys start talking about that film.

LOL. Look, you need to watch the film for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone here influence you. Again, watch it yourself and make up your own mind.

This film you had posted, the first part irritated me. The religious section. Not because they showed pagan influence, I already knew about that and agreed with allot of it. It just left a bad taste in my mouth from beginning to end with telling half truths or alluding to things.

Well, the point is CHRISTIANITY IS A CONSTRUCT. That is quite easy to discern.

For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

Numbers 22:28-30, NAS
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

If anyone tells you they've seen a talking donkey, then they're crazy. They don't exist, and never have.

Organized religion is a tool used to control people. All the religions are an attempt to explain God, but they ultimately place power in the hands of religious leaders instead of teaching true spirituality.

I especially didn’t like the assumption we came from pond scum.

They acknowledge spirituality quite a few times in the film. I didn't see any "assumption" that we come from pond scum.

But even if there were such an assumption, if you were offended that they questioned Christianity, doesn't the Bible claim people came from dirt or dust? How could "pond scum" be so much more offensive than dirt or dust?

So, I went into it not trusting the film maker and probably having bias against it.

At least you can admit that. That is more than a lot of people on these forums.

 

[Pandora]

LOL. Look, you need to watch the film for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone here influence you. Again, watch it yourself and make up your own mind.

Oh I did, but I did not have the answers I was looking for. A few of the posters explained the other side and I think they were more convincing than the film.

Well, the point is CHRISTIANITY IS A CONSTRUCT. That is quite easy to discern.

For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

Numbers 22:28-30, NAS
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

If anyone tells you they've seen a talking donkey, then they're crazy. They don't exist, and never have.

Organized religion is a tool used to control people. All the religions are an attempt to explain God, but they ultimately place power in the hands of religious leaders instead of teaching true spirituality.

Not everything in the scriptures are literal, example Jesus said I am the door. But he is not made of wood or has hinges. And there is a vs where the Creator says he will wrap you in his wings, but I don’t think it was meant literally. I think organized religion is a tool to control populations too. But they took some truth, added crap to it and twisted it up to make what they wanted you to believe. It’s not all wrong. You just have to be careful where things came from.

They acknowledge spirituality quite a few times in the film. I didn't see any "assumption" that we come from pond scum.

But even if there were such an assumption, if you were offended that they questioned Christianity, doesn't the Bible claim people came from dirt or dust? How could "pond scum" be so much more offensive than dirt or dust?

You didn’t see it? The opening part of the film, the big bang then the cute little single cell organisms, then they became like pond scum, then they turned into fish, then they got legs and lungs and became a rat climbing a tree then a monkey, ape then there is man adding 1 plus 1…..

The offending part is this. The big bang single cell organism is associated with atheism, the other is not. Neither is provable, yet one is constantly considered truth and the other moronic. I am sensitive from being beat down to many times by people who hypocritically think they should bash what I believe because I can not prove it, and try to make me feel like a fool for not embracing what they believe, even though they can not prove it.

At least you can admit that. That is more than a lot of people on these forums.

I don’t mind admitting if I am bias, I am bias on some things and it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to not notice my own bias when I am complaining about someone else’s.

I’ll point out a hypocrite even if I am the hypocrite.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Zeitgeist - Lies

To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid.

Here's what I said about the movie in my original post:

Factually, the 30% of lies needed to support the theory are saturated in 70% truth

Are you still trying to discredit me? Thats adorable...

I haven't taken the time to literally go through the entire documentary and validate every little part of it.

You should... before you promote it as a "fantastic documentary"...

But take the first topic in the 9/11 section - "No Warnings" - Bush, Condi Rice, and Cheney clearly stated there was no way anyone could have had warning or known they would fly planes into buildings.

There were warnings, which with the help of hindsight, we can clearly arrange and separate from the millions of warnings coming in at the same time and all pointing to threats in different areas. If you look at the timeline leading up to 9/11, its easy to find yourself wondering why it wasn't obvious to everyone. The answer is, Hindsight Bias and the Historians fallacy - both of which run rampant in the 9/11 portion of Zeitgeist.

There were warnings, that doesn't eliminate the fact there was NO actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9/11.

our own government had run exercises involving planes flying into buildings at an earlier time

I can't find any records where we ever ran exercises such as "Operation- Practice for 9/11", perhaps you could provide a link that verifies we have ever run Hijacking-Suicide-747missile drills. Until then, I will consider this one another lie.

Some point to The 9/11 Commission Report which mentioned - in a footnote - aircraft taking part in Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian as well as Operation Norther Vigilance. All of which were to defend the country against Russian long range bombers. Although there was a possible scenario that dealt with a traditional hijacking, none of the scenarios thought up by NORAD, and being practiced that day, dealt with flying planes into buildings.
------------------------
About (9/11: Press for Truth)

Although it's quite interesting to note that the government still won't answer over 70% of their simple questions.

I'm not going to go out and BUY/RENT a video to debunk it... So not worth my time or money. Since you have seen it and presumably own it, share with us the "70% of their simple questions" so that we can provide some answers.
They sure won't get any answers or truth from the Truth Movement....
I can almost guarantee the answers are out there (I haven't seen the video, so I don't know if they ask about the Alien Moose, otherwise I would guarantee).

-----------------------

For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

You reference whats clearly an Allegorical story - but hold it to the standard one would apply to a syllogism - Do you honestly consider this a legitimate example of why the Bible is wrong?
Besides, it was you that said:

To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid.

You just invalidated yourself... Did it tickle?
---------
I can admit my bias...

That is more than a lot of people on these forums.

People like yourself?
I have yet to hear you admit your bias in wanting all the claims in Zeitgeist to be true... Which you clearly do by refusing to admit ANY lies on the part of the movie.
I don't mind admitting my bias, I don't think its OK to lie and I'm biased against liars - especially liars who take my side and spout lies, I shut them down first. This is why you cannot discredit me, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Ummmm...it's been out for quite some time, idiot. You can rent it on Netflix or Blockbuster if you don't believe me.

Never made it here, and the DVD's don't ship til October (per the link you provided) so like GenSen, I'm not going to go out and rent some movie just to debunk it.

I'm not "shilling" for a movie anymore than anyone is shilling for any source they present. "9/11: Press for Truth" makes no conclusions itself as to who made the attacks. It simply deals with the evidence.

You are shilling, because you won't bring up the points the film allegedly makes, but what can we expect since you NEVER make a point on your own without first having it handed to you by someone else, and then you run around regurgitating it as if it were handed down from God Almighty without bothering to do any research on it yourself to see if your Masters got it right or not. And you have the temerity to call anyone else an idiot?

As for the rest, yeah...right. All of you CT'ers claim that "it's not a conspiracy theory", but apparantly you haven't bothered to look up the definition of a CT either, so that tracks with your patterns.

(that'll teach me to look at someones posts after I've put 'em on ignore)

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Oh I did,

So you watched "9/11: Press for Truth"? Note that is a separate documentary and not part of Zeitgeist.

but I did not have the answers I was looking for.

What "answers" are you looking for?

Not everything in the scriptures are literal,

True, but the premise is still irrational. The premise is "What is in this book is true because it's in this book." And that is invalid.

You didn’t see it? The opening part of the film, the big bang then the cute little single cell organisms, then they became like pond scum, then they turned into fish, then they got legs and lungs and became a rat climbing a tree then a monkey, ape then there is man adding 1 plus 1…..

Ok, yes, so the evolutionary part is what you're referring to.

The offending part is this. The big bang single cell organism is associated with atheism, the other is not. Neither is provable,

I agree with you 100%. Neither is provable. There are many anomalies with the theory of evolution. When someone asks "how did we get here" - at this point in time the only logical answer is "I don't know."

 

[Truth-Bringer]

so like GenSen, I'm not going to go out and rent some movie just to debunk it.

No, you're not going to go rent it because you fear it.

You are shilling,

No, I'm not. You are a deceptive, lying fraud. You've been beaten in every single thread you've challenged me in, and you will continue to get your lying butt pwned if you continue to spew your irrational nonsense in my direction.

 

[BigRob]

No, you're not going to go rent it because you fear it.



No, I'm not. You are a deceptive, lying fraud. You've been beaten in every single thread you've challenged me in, and you will continue to get your lying butt pwned if you continue to spew your irrational nonsense in my direction.

You can find the entire video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcA6oXoTvU&NR=1 is the link to one part, the other parts are on the side there.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Re: Zeitgeist - Lies

Here's what I said about the movie in my original post:

Factually, the 30% of lies needed to support the theory are saturated in 70% truth

Are you still trying to discredit me? Thats adorable...

You are discredited. You just haven't accepted it yet...which isn't adorable.

Wow, you made a generalized statement!!! That proves so much... ROTFL.

You should... before you promote it as a "fantastic documentary"...

That's an opinion. I never said it proved anything. In fact, if you'll notice I've advised that people watch things for themselves and make up their own minds. I do think it's a fantastic documentary based on production value alone. It received many positive reviews. And I have openly admitted that I've not taken the time to research and verify every single portion of the film.

There were warnings, which with the help of hindsight, we can clearly arrange and separate from the millions of warnings coming in at the same time and all pointing to threats in different areas. If you look at the timeline leading up to 9/11, its easy to find yourself wondering why it wasn't obvious to everyone. The answer is, Hindsight Bias and the Historians fallacy - both of which run rampant in the 9/11 portion of Zeitgeist.

You just don't like the details, do you?

After September 11th, FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley wrote a scathing letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over what she characterized as FBI Headquarters' pre-9/11 blocking of her Minneapolis Field Office's attempts to investigate "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui, whom they had arrested the month before the attacks.

Rowley was called to testify before the Senate and later the 9/11 Commission and was named 'Time Magazine's 2002 "Person of the Year" for her efforts to bring the truth to light in this matter.

Link

But of course, that's just another "coincidence."

Kind of like this "coincidence":

Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks

(Note that's from a conservative Republican website also)

And that time line is the same time line used in "9/11: Press for Truth":

The Complete 9/11 Timeline
Paul Thompson

In mid-2002, Paul Thompson, a Northern California native and Stanford University alumnus with no previous interest in the subject of terrorism, became intrigued by several stories regarding 9/11 which suddenly appeared in the press—among them, CBS News’ revelation that President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6th, 2001, warning of an impending attack by Osama bin Laden in the United States involving aircraft. Thompson found himself poring over news of the attacks on the internet and growing increasingly frustrated with how incomplete the story of September 11th was. He began gathering and condensing every credible fact on 9/11, setting a rule for himself that he would only include what he could find in mainstream news sources, and posted those facts online in chronological order."

There were warnings, that doesn't eliminate the fact there was NO actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9/11.

B.S. There was actionable intelligence and it was ignored. Here's another example:

TOP-LEVEL Sources Confirm AFP Exclusives:
Feds Knew of 9-11 and Did Nothing

There is compelling evidence that U.S. authorities had specific
advance warning about 9-11 and other forthcoming
terrorist attacks on American soil—but failed to act.

By Joseph R. Corson

Federal officials are trying to intimidate an individual who — six months prior to the 9-11 tragedy — had provided, through multiple venues, early warning, based on inside information, that terrorists reputedly connected to al Qaeda were planning massive attacks on American soil.

On Jan. 8, 2003, high-ranking FBI official Ted Gunderson (ret.) visited American Free Press headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington and provided detailed documentary material that unveils a remarkable series of events.

Gunderson has compiled evidence demonstrating beyond any question that the FBI is now engaged in a clear-cut effort to cover up its foreknowledge of specific allegations about then-impending terrorist attacks of the type that happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gunderson’s charges are particularly powerful precisely because of who he (Gunderson) happens to be: a 27-year FBI veteran who capped his career in the bureau as senior special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office of the FBI. In Los Angeles, Gunderson had over 700 people under his command and operated a $22 million budget. Previously he served as special agent-in-charge of FBI offices in such major cities as Memphis and Dallas.

Rest of Article Here

Of course there have been all kinds of smear campaigns against Gunderson. And some people have tried to discredit him as jumping onto conspiracy bandwagons because he believes Sonny Bono was murdered due to his attempts to expose federal corruption. Who knows? Maybe Bono was murdered. I don't know the evidence in the case and I damn sure don't trust any government conclusion without having access to the facts myself.

But from what I've seen Gunderson has had a stellar career in law enforcement and seems to be devoted to doing the right thing.

I can't find any records where we ever ran exercises such as "Operation- Practice for 9/11", perhaps you could provide a link that verifies we have ever run Hijacking-Suicide-747missile drills. Until then, I will consider this one another lie.

I'll have to come back to this one.

Ok, found a link that seems to do the job well:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6906

------------------------
About (9/11: Press for Truth)

I'm not going to go out and BUY/RENT a video to debunk it...

Then go to youtube and search for it.

So not worth my time or money. Since you have seen it and presumably own it, share with us the "70% of their simple questions" so that we can provide some answers.

The problem isn't with you providing answers, Genboy. The problem is that the government has refused to provide the answers. Here are some of them:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

I like these:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

• Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong?
• When and where were they found?
• Please describe their condition.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,” a Key West, Florida group which has issued about 10,000 passports since 1993? If so, did Atta use it at any time to enter the United States? If so, when?

4. Did the records from the Conch Republic indicate that any other hijackers purchased passports from there? http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2001/miamiherald100301b.html

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

You reference whats clearly an Allegorical story - but hold it to the standard one would apply to a syllogism - Do you honestly consider this a legitimate example of why the Bible is wrong?
Besides, it was you that said:

You just invalidated yourself... Did it tickle?

You're right - that example does not prove my case. So allow me clarify and let's get to the root issue. The Bible is inaccurate not because of that one example, but because the underlying premise is "what's in this book is true because it's in this book" - and that is indeed irrational.

I have yet to hear you admit your bias in wanting all the claims in Zeitgeist to be true...

What I've admitted is that people should watch it for themselves and make their own conclusions. They shouldn't let other people tell them what to think about the film.

I don't mind admitting my bias, I don't think its OK to lie

ROTFL. You're not interested in the truth at all.

 

[GenSeneca]

But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons." --Globalsearch

There was no actionable intelligence. Nothing that said specific people would be boarding specific planes, hijacking them, and ramming specific buildings.

The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism". --Globalsearch ABOUT

Who are you going to trust when Conspiracy Theorists run the government?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There was no actionable intelligence. Nothing that said specific people would be boarding specific planes, hijacking them, and ramming specific buildings.

Again, B.S. You seem to be a government apologist on this issue. You're covering their rear ends here, when many of them are guilty of criminal negligence (at the very least). Why did you run away from my specifics on the last post? You said you wanted to answer some questions, so answer them big boy:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

• Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong?
• When and where were they found?
• Please describe their condition.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,” a Key West, Florida group which has issued about 10,000 passports since 1993? If so, did Atta use it at any time to enter the United States? If so, when?

4. Did the records from the Conch Republic indicate that any other hijackers purchased passports from there?

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

I'll go ahead and answer a couple for you. Atta and al-Sugam's passports were found in pristine condition. Kind of amazing considering they allegedly survived a jet explosion and fires hot enough to melt steel... Also, no record of Atta ever using this passport to enter the United States has ever been found.

To my knowledge, no other passports or ID from any other flights were found.

Now go search for some official probability standards and tell me what the odds are that the only two passports/ID found from all 4 destroyed jets were of two of the alleged hijackers and tell me what the odds are that they would be in pristine condition. Then tell me what the odds are that it was pure chance. Get ready to write down some very big numbers.

Who are you going to trust when Conspiracy Theorists run the government?

I don't get your point here. Care to explain?

 

[GenSeneca]

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

The passports were inside the luggage they had with them on the plane.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

There are just 5 that I have seen the CT's talk about: Two from Flight 11, one from 77 and two from 93 - 4 terrorist and 1 civilian. Of course, terrorist passport being found makes the news - Finding John Q. Public's passport wouldn't even make the local paper so its not surprising we don't have news or other media records about them. There were huge quantities of "personal effects" that were recovered from the WTC site, the Pentagon and Flight 93, all of which were returned to the families.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,”

Its one thing to have a passport issued from the Conch Republic and its called fraud when you make your own... These guys were well funded, well connected and had many fake documents either with them or available at all times. I've seen many fake ID's in my time, to pretend like terrorists wouldn't do such a thing is silly.

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, he took only his carry-on, his other bags did not make it onto Flight 11.

I'll go ahead and answer a couple for you. Atta and al-Sugam's passports were found in pristine condition. Kind of amazing considering they allegedly survived a jet explosion and fires hot enough to melt steel.

1. Pristine condition made plausible:

Look very closely, there is debris out in front of the fireball in each one of these segments. With the objects in motion wishing to stay in motion, much of it blew threw the other side. Heres a shot of the tower from the side so you can see exactly what it looked like:

Notice how see through the buildings are.... very little to stop debris from the plane and its impact from punching through one side and out the other... well in front of the fireball.

2. Molten Steel. Only the CT's claim that any steel was ever melted. The structural integrity needed to fail, it didn't have to melt. This is a picture of one such failed, concrete reinforced steel support beam:

This is from WTC5 which had much less fire damage and was able to be brought under control. Notice the concrete housing has crumbled and the steel was flexible enough with the heat and pressure to buckle.
---------------------------

I don't get your point here.

I don't mind helping set the record straight but I'm under no obligation to do so.
Here's a site you might enjoy: Debunking 9/11

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.

I have more respect for these guys than the Truthers... these guys aren't selling DVD's that promote their conspiracy.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: Zeitgeist - LIES

You can find the entire video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcA6oXoTvU&NR=1 is the link to one part, the other parts are on the side there.

This is a link to part of Zeitgeist. I want to point out how quickly the lies start flying:
0:01 About the Pentagon: "The official explanation is the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane."
Flat out LIE. The "Official Explanation" is always the strawman of the Conspiracy argument. As I have pointed out, the Pentagon was definitely hit by a plane that did not disintegrate. There was debris and I have given photos of some of it.
0:12 "It is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jetfuel."
This is TRUE but thanks to the strawman, it has tricked your mind into accepting this faulty logic as a reason to reject anything labeled "Official Explanation" as illogical.

Lets bring in an expert. Preferably someone with a PHD in Philosophy, who's selling books to make money off the tragedy of 9/11:

0:19 Dr. David Ray Griffin: "We're also told the bodies were able to be identified, either by their fingerprints or their DNA... So what kind of fire can vaporize aluminum and tempered steel, and yet leave, leave human bodies in tact?"
He uses the straw man of the "Official Explanation" to support his conclusions and confuse viewers into having doubt as to whether or not bodies were able to be identified.
Bodies were identified - piece by piece. There are witness testimonies from the people who had to collect the remains and sort them.

Its non-stop lies, fallacies, twisted logic, half-truths... serious work to unravel all this drivel.

Gonna jump ahead to the purpose for my post...

0:57 The speaker/narrator says the following:
The videos from security cameras, which would show what really hit the pentagon, were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI. And the department of Justice has to this day refused to release them. If these videos really prove the Pentagon was hit by a 757, most of us would assume the government would release them."
The videos in question total 85. The deceptive logic here is in the wording: Would Show - suggests all the videos show something other than nothing.
The DOJ does refuse to release them - because they don't show anything.

The important sentence: "However, It is highly unlikely that all 85 videotapes that do not show the crash of flight 77 into the pentagon will be shown..."
Thanks to your mind being opened to faulty logic, you read this as proof that there is something on the tapes thats being suppressed.
If you speed through town and the cops confiscate 85 videotapes along your route... Would they show the videos where your car doesn't even appear in the frame at your trial? Of course not, those videos don't prove you were speeding since they didn't see you.
So look again at whats said:
If these videos really prove the Pentagon was hit by a 757, most of us would assume the government would release them.
We would, what would we assume about videos that had nothing to show?
It is highly unlikely that all 85 videotapes that do not show the crash of flight 77 into the pentagon will be shown.
----------------------------------
Zeitgeist Lies

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The passports were inside the luggage they had with them on the plane.

Carry on luggage must be kept in the compartments above the seats. An alleged terrorist would have definitely complied with this to keep a low profile before making his move. And the passports would have been inside a zipper or locked area of the luggage. Exactly how does their luggage jettison out of the overhead compartment, (out of windows smaller than the luggage itself) and then jettison out of the luggage, plane and building in time to avoid the explosion and immediate fire? LOL. You've got to be pretty gullible to believe that.

There are just 5 that I have seen the CT's talk about: Two from Flight 11, one from 77 and two from 93 - 4 terrorist and 1 civilian. Of course, terrorist passport being found makes the news - Finding John Q. Public's passport wouldn't even make the local paper so its not surprising we don't have news or other media records about them.

Regardless, claiming they "didn't make the news" doesn't prove anything.

There were huge quantities of "personal effects" that were recovered from the WTC site, the Pentagon and Flight 93, all of which were returned to the families.

Let's see the source for the personal effects. Why didn't the passports survive if several other things did? Again, this goes back to probability. What percentage of personal effects were found in pristine condition? 90%, 50%, 10%, 5%?

Its one thing to have a passport issued from the Conch Republic and its called fraud when you make your own... These guys were well funded, well connected and had many fake documents either with them or available at all times.

Source. And let's see proof that Atta had more than one passport.

Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, he took only his carry-on, his other bags did not make it onto Flight 11.

What about the other passengers who were delayed?

1. Pristine condition made plausible:
Look very closely, there is debris out in front of the fireball in each one of these segments. With the objects in motion wishing to stay in motion, much of it blew threw the other side. Heres a shot of the tower from the side so you can see exactly what it looked like:

Made plausible? LOL. YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY OF THAT CAME FROM INSIDE THE PLANES. It's pure speculation. Probability says it came from inside the WTC offices. And it also has to survive the collapse and thus being pelted with all sorts of rapidly falling debris, unless it again gets "miraculously" pushed out of harm's way by the wind... And if it's found at the WTC, how did it get out of harm's way???? We have yet to have this miracle explained...

The video that I've seen shows no debris coming out of either plane. They both pass complete into the building before exploding.

Notice how see through the buildings are.... very little to stop debris from the plane and its impact from punching through one side and out the other... well in front of the fireball.

That pretty picture proves nothing.

2. Molten Steel. Only the CT's claim that any steel was ever melted.

The point is that burning jet fuel is rather hot. Plenty hot enough to destroy paper/light plastic almost immediately.

 

[GenSeneca]

Exactly how does their luggage jettison out of the overhead compartment, (out of windows smaller than the luggage itself) and then jettison out of the luggage, plane and building in time to avoid the explosion and immediate fire?

Aircraft debris, which included baggage and contents, was spread across that area.

Probability says it came from inside the WTC offices.

Whats the probability of having American Airlines life vests laying around inside the WTC?

The video that I've seen shows no debris coming out of either plane.

Since we know its impossible to doctor 1 video, we should all assume there was a massive government conspiracy and cover up... We should also pretend like all the videos that contradict this theory are said to be doctored fakes.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I must admit to having found this thread quite interesting, I've read all of it and followed up most of the links. I've also been reading a lot of other sites and doing follow up and I remain unconvinced of the official story. There just seem to be too many questions left unanswered. It was such a convenient act of terrorism for Mr. Bush and quite a few other people who stood to make a lot of money from the disaster.

I think that it will be very telling if we have another "convenient" act of terror just before the election this fall.

I'd like to express my appreciation to all of the people who have made substantial contributions to this thread and provided informative explanations and sources for our perusal.

One thing that puzzles me is that the two towers were damaged so differently but yet collapsed so identically--that seems very unlikely. One hit square on and one hit a glancing blow and still fall so closely to the same pattern. I find the interviews with the firemen to be persuasive as well. As long as the administration stonewalls, people will continue to question--as well they should.

Considering how much money was spent investigating Bill Clinton, I think the amount spent on investigating the 9/11 event was paltrey by comparison. Please excuse me for being suspicious, but I've been lied to before.